“I came all this way to receive training, am I really going to be taught by a woman?” Factors that support and hinder women’s participation in agroecology in Costa Rica

ABSTRACT

In agroecology, women’s activities, from seed saving to activism, are well documented. Less well described are the factors that support and/or hinder women’s participation in agroecology; we addressed this gap through a feminist analysis of women’s motivations and barriers to participation in agroecological production in Costa Rica. We found that women derive multiple benefits from agroecology. These benefits included: sharing knowledge, creating community, income generation, independence (financial and having their own identity that goes beyond that of a man’s), cultural identity, health (human and land), biodiversity conservation, self-confidence, and leadership opportunities within agroecological networks. Our results also illustrated how there are multiple barriers to women’s participation including: access to leadership positions, government support, access to capital, technology, land access, high costs of agriculture, a lack of understanding of Indigenous culture, triple burdens, and machismo and microaggressions. Although women experienced some common barriers to participation, women experience agroecology differently, based on age, ethnicity, and geographic location, and their unique context. The common barriers reported by women (machismo and triple burdens) illustrate how agroecology cannot be isolated from 1) the wider culture of discrimination against women in agriculture and 2) women’s disproportionate roles in the care economy.

KEYWORDS:

• Feminist political ecology
• gender
• Latin America

Introduction

In 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations endorsed agroecology as a pathway to achieve the 2030 agenda and the 17 interconnected sustainable development goals (SDGs; FAO 2018). Specifically, agroecology was reported as central to achieving our 2030 agenda for three main reasons. First, agroecology addresses hunger and malnutrition from a holistic perspective; this means that food systems are designed to address the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of food insecurity. Second, it contributes to multiple overlapping SDGs (e.g., ensuring sustainable consumption and production, building climate resilience, and halting the loss of biodiversity). Third, it empowers people to transform their food systems to prioritizing diversity and equality. Specifically, agroecology prioritizes the use of traditional knowledge and highlights gender equality. Our research seeks to better understand the latter: to what extent agroecology supports gender equality in the context of Costa Rica.

The agroecology literature has a history of highlighting the importance of women in family farming (Rosset and Martinez-Torres 2012). This literature describes the tasks, roles, and practices carried out by women as part of their agroecological group identity (Rojas, Sylvester, and Zahar 2018; Giacomini 2016–17). The latter group of studies includes descriptions of women’s seed-saving, organic farming, wild food harvesting, knowledge sharing, leadership, and activism (Sylvester, García Segura, and Davidson-Hunt 2016; Cid Aguayo and Latta 2015). Feminist scholars, however, have called for a more nuanced analysis of women in agroecology; specifically, this call has been made to move beyond assumptions that agroecology can be equated with women’s empowerment and to critically examine women’s lived experiences and everyday struggles to achieve dignified and meaningful participation in agroecology (Zuluaga Sánchez, Catacora-Vargas, and Siliprandi 2018). This feminist appeal for a more critical analysis of women in farming is also mirrored in the conventional agriculture literature. Doss et al. (2018) illustrate that many studies remain descriptive and lack an exploration of women’s challenges as well as proposed solutions to overcome these challenges. Specifically, Doss et al. (2018) comment on how we need to “recognize that agriculture is important for rural women, strengthen women’s access to the resources needed for productive agriculture, and reduce the time and energy burden of household work including food processing and preparation (p. 71).”

A number of studies have reported on the benefits women derive from agroecology. A study done with one female farmer in Mtubatuba South Africa illustrates how this farmer gains health benefits from the food she grows, as well as economic benefits because she does not have to buy seeds and is not dependent on market fluctuations (Ngcoya and Kumarakulasingam 2017). Another study, on women’s experiences within the Agroecological Network in Moreno Maia in the Brazilian Amazon, illustrates that women derive multiple benefits from agroecology including: being valued for their farming, increased prices for their products, new commercial relations that are independent of dominant markets, friendships with clients, visibility for female farmers, and financial independence (García Roces, Soler Moneil, and Canto 2014–15). Although the latter article did not report on many barriers for women in agroecology, the authors alluded to the fact that conflicts can occur with their male partners when women increase their economic independence. Conflicts over income generation reflect the need to understand women’s participation in agroecology within wider gendered household, community, and societal contexts.

One area of research that requires more attention is the challenges women face in agroecology; understanding these challenges can guide agroecology policy and programs on how to best support women in this field. Perhaps one of the reasons that research is lacking in this area is due to the assumption that agroecology is synonymous with gender equality (e.g., FAO 2018). In the recent book, “Agroecocologia en Feminino”, editors and contributors have clearly illustrated how the mainstream agroecology literature has overlooked the nuances of women’s participation in this field. Instead, agroecology has been portrayed as a practice where family members of different ages and genders share tasks and benefit equally. For this reason, contributors to this book and other feminist scholars have called for a critical feminist analysis of agroecology to better understand power relations as well as women’s unique challenges in this field (García Roces, Soler Moneil, and Canto 2014–15; Siliprandi 2010). Chiappe (2018) describes how women working in agroecology in Uruguay have experienced multiple challenges including: 1) disproportionate work in the care economy, 2) lack of technical and financial assistance for agroecological farming, and 3) imposter syndrome, or a feeling of not deserving to be in a given position or feeling out of place (Clance and Imes 1978).

Our paper expands on the small but growing field of feminist analyzes of agroecology. Specifically, we analyze women’s experiences, including the benefits and unique challenges they face in agroecology, and we do so in the context of Costa Rica. Specifically, we were interested in better understanding: 1) the history of how women came into farming, 2) the benefits women derive from agroecology, and 3) what factors have supported and/or hindered women’s participation in agroecology. In line with feminist analyses, our goal was to work in depth with female participants of unique backgrounds and experiences; thus, our study goal was not to survey a large quantity of females but rather to work in-depth with a small group of women from unique backgrounds to deeply understand their lived-experiences (Garko 1999). Our findings are important to broaden the collective understanding of gender and agroecology and to move beyond generalizations about women’s experiences in this field. It is important to note that critical feminist analyses of agroecology are lacking in the English literature and are found mainly in Spanish and Portuguese (see Zuluaga Sánchez, Catacora-Vargas, and Siliprandi 2018); thus, our work also brings this perspective to the English literature. Finally, our findings can be used by governments and other support organizations in Costa Rica and countries with similar social contexts to strengthen women’s access to resources and to ensure their increased inclusion in agroecology. Better understanding of how to include and support women is especially important as nations seek to scale-up agroecology (FAO 2018).

Conceptual framework: feminist political ecology

We used a Feminist Political Ecology (FPE) conceptual framework to examine women’s experiences in agroecology. FPE is based on feminist theories, including feminist standpoint theory, a theory that was created due to the fact that women’s knowledge and experience has historically been undervalued and invisible (Haraway 1988). More specifically, feminist standpoint scholars have illustrated how theories and methods used across many disciplines did not apply to the world as females experience it (Smith 1987). In other words, knowledge about the world has not historically accurately reflected women’s lived experiences. To address this knowledge gap, feminist standpoint scholars have called for the centering of women’s lives in research (Haraway 1988). Feminist standpoint scholars also highlight the need to critically examine society through women’s perspectives. Specifically, women’s perspectives can shed light on how society functions as a whole and thus illustrate societal inequalities and injustices (Brooks 2007). Thus, feminist political ecologists (based on the earlier feminist principles) analyze the lived experiences of women in the field of environmental studies to illustrate wider societal inequity and injustice (Rocheleau, Thomas-Slayter, and Wangari 1996).

FPE cautions against this homogenization of women’s experiences and the production of generalizations about women. Instead, scholars need to examine how each woman’s life is shaped by the intersection of gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age, among other elements (Hill Collins 1997; Rocheleau, Thomas-Slayter, and Wangari 1996). This diversity does not, however, interfere with our ability to build new knowledge because each woman’s experience teaches us something new about society (Brooks 2007). Furthermore, some women will have shared histories based on their shared location in hierarchical relations of power (Hill Collins 1997) and will then share some common experiences (based on gender, ethnicity, or other factors). One example from one of the coauthors’ doctoral research illustrates this point. When she was working with Indigenous women in Costa Rica, she experienced immediate attention at the local clinic; her Indigenous colleagues told her however that her experience was unique and that if she were an Indigenous woman, she would be attended to last. Thus, although women in a given context may share similar histories of oppression based on their gender, their experiences can differ based on class, race, ethnicity, and other social differences.

Applying an FPE framework to agroecology is important to better understand if and how agroecology opens up meaningful spaces for women’s participation in farming. An FPE framework allows us to critically analyze women’s experiences practicing agroecology and to document unique women’s benefits and challenges from this field. A small but growing body of feminist agroecological analyses exists and these studies have found that much remains to be done to improve women’s participation in agroecology. Specifically, these studies illustrate that despite benefits women have reported (e.g., increased incomes, financial independence, and visibility for female farmers; García Roces, Soler Moneil, and Canto 2014–15), women experience challenges that mirror gendered barriers in agriculture as a wider field. One important point made by Zuluaga Sánchez, Catacora-Vargas, and Siliprandi (2018) is that feminist analyses and agroecology have similar goals such as: to improve the quality of life of people and nature and to transform gender relations.

An FPE analysis of agroecology also addresses an emerging theme in this journal: food system transformation based on equity and social justice (Gliessman and Ferguson 2020). Such an analysis begins from the lives, activities, and political struggles of a diversity of women (Sabzalian 2018) which represents a small but growing body of literature in agroecology (García Roces, Soler Moneil, and Canto 2014–15; Siliprandi 2010, Zuluaga Sánchez, Catacora-Vargas, and Siliprandi 2018). Feminist analyses of agroecology are timely since nations are aiming to scale-up agroecology as part of their commitments to the UN sustainable development goals (FAO 2018).

Methodology

Study design, data gathering methods, and participant invitation

We used an exploratory qualitative design to document the lived experiences of women. To garner in-depth, accurate information about women’s lives, researchers require developing strong trust relationships with participants. Such stories can be partly told via qualitative interviews, but some experiences are only understood after participation with women in their daily activities (Garko 1999). Due to the need for strong trust relationships with women and access to not only their stories but also their day-to-day activities and lives, we used purposive sampling to invite female farmers that both authors have been working with for the past 5 to 10 years. Specifically, our work with these female farmers ranges from: long-term research (up to 10 years) and frequent farm visits for research as well as for education with student groups where we stay on farms for periods that range from a day to over two weeks at a time. Our specific criteria for invitation were as follows: 1) women currently working using agroecological methods, and 2) agroecology represents part and/or all of these women’s income.

Because farmers used different definitions to describe their farming, we used the following criteria for agroecological farming: 1) use natural versus synthetic chemical inputs, 2) prioritize traditional and indigenous knowledge and practices, 3) promote genetic conservation and biodiversity, 4) enrich soil health. These four criteria come from the agroecological literature (Third World Network & SOCLA 2015).

We sampled for diversity to include participants of different life-stages, from rural and peri-urban areas, from different regions of the country, and to include Indigenous as well as non-Indigenous participants (Table 1). All nine women invited, agreed to participate. It is important to note that in-depth qualitative research does not follow random or probability sampling in order to generalize about a wider population, such as the wider population of female agroecological farmers in Costa Rica; instead, a small number of participants are ideal to gather rich data about their lives (Garko 1999).

Table 1. Female farmers who participated in our study (heterogeneity sampling based on age, ethnicity, and geographic location)

Name	Age	People in Household	Farm name & locations in Costa Rica
Zoraida Hernández	61	2	Family Farm, Quitirrisí Indigenous Territory
Hannia Patricia Villalobos Martínez	60	3	Rinconcito Orgánico, Cartago
Nuria Alpízar Chaves	57	4	Finca El Progreso, Guápiles
Sonia Maritza García Morales	55	2	Finca Génesis, Guápiles
Sebastiana Segura Segura	53	2	Family farm, Talamanca Bribri Territory
Kattia González Quirós	50	4	Los Cartagos, Cartago
Silvia Corrales	47	2	Finca Elefante, Atenas
Esmeralda Pérez Hernández	37	3	Family Farm, Quitirrisí Indigenous Territory
Felicia Rodríguez	32	3	Finca San Luis, Grecia

We do not have data for the number of female agroecological farmers in Costa Rica. The national registry of organic farmers estimates 8,964.40 hectares of national land that is certified as organic production, and on these farms, there are 2,600 farmers registered (pers. comm. Miguel Castro Hernandez, president of the National Movement for Costa Rican Organic Agriculture). Because many agroecological farmers are not certified organic, but use organic practices, the number of agroecological farmers likely exceeds this estimate.

The data in this paper come from farming and living with women and from semi-structured interviews done in 2019; although interviews were done in 2019, women often referred us to past stories they have shared with us that we have in our earlier field notes, notes that date back to 2012 for one of the coauthors’ case. We participated in women’s farming activities (from visiting, working, and/or living on farms as well as participating in market activities). In 2019, when visiting each farm, we took in-depth field notes and we carried out semi-structured interviews that lasted from one to four hours and eight of the nine interviews were audio-recorded; we carried out follow-up interviews with three women (these interviews lasted from one to two hours). Our questions for women addressed the following themes: 1) how they came into farming, 2) the benefits they derive from practicing agroecology, 3) the factors that support and/or hinder their participation in agroecology. This research was approved by the University for Peace Research Ethics Board. All participants provided their informed consent and chose to use their names associated with their contributions.

Data analysis

All interviews were transcribed and both authors carried out a process of qualitative thematic analysis (Ryan and Russell Bernard 2003). Specifically, we read interview transcripts separately and coded independently, then worked together to compare the themes identified and to create a final list; these themes are the subheadings in our results section.

Results and discussion

In this section, first, we describe how women came into agroecological farming. Second, we describe the benefits women enjoy from agroecology. Third, we analyze the factors that either support and/or constrain women’s participation in agroecology.

How women came into agroecological farming

Of the nine participants, all started their farming career with agroecology. Three female participants had experience in conventional agriculture via family businesses. These participants reported that their observations of the negative impacts of conventional agriculture and specifically the use of pesticides as one of the main reasons they implemented agroecological practices.

Land and human health

Although women came into farming at different life-stages and for distinct reasons, all participants reported their desire to participate in agroecology for their own health, for the health of their family, their children, and/or for the environment. Personal experience with illness was common. Sonia described becoming interested in the connections between the health of the earth and human health when hospitalized for asthma. Felicia found that eating chemical-free food for psoriasis and allergies helped when conventional medication did not; this experience helped convince her and her father to convert their farm completely to organic practices. Kattia shifted to agroecology when she saw her husband sick from pesticide use on their own land. In a study with rural women in Bolivia practicing agroecology, both land and human health were mentioned as factors why women practice agroecology, including protecting land from toxic chemicals to ensure healthy food production (Llanque et al. 2018).

Practicing agroecology as a youth

Seven of nine participants described learning some agroecological practices in their youth. For example, Felicia and Nuria shared their experiences:

Since I was the youngest child, I was my mother’s shadow as she started to implement her women’s groups’ organic practices on our farm. It was all very hands-on, and I liked it more [than conventional farming] because we produced many different products in the organic fields. This experience is why I am more interested in agriculture than my four older siblings and now run the farm. (Felicia)

It is important to note that two other participants learned agroecology much later in life with no previous experience farming. Although there is not a large body of literature on learning agroecology practices, the literature on learning about plants reports that learning often occurs in one’s youth (e.g., Mariana, Ladio, and Weigandt 2006). Although the majority of our participants practiced agroecology due to teachings in their youth, learning farming in one’s youth was not a prerequisite to practicing agroecology.

Agroecological and cultural values

Two participants described practicing agroecology due to the values they associated with this practice. Specifically, Hannia described when her husband did his thesis in organic agriculture that they were both:

convinced of the virtue of this production system and we considered it was the way we wanted to produce food … we also consider that agroecology is an activity that is based on principles and values … like honesty, transparency, traceability, commitment and social justice.

All three indigenous participants described practicing agroecology (which they referred to as Indigenous agriculture) because it is part of an Indigenous cultural identity. Specifically, Sebastiana and Zoraida, both Elders, described their way of farming as following the teachings from their ancestors and the creator, Sibö. For example, Sebastiana explained “I started farming because it brings us life, and this is how we follow Sibö’s teachings.” Here, Sibö refers to the Bribri Creator. Similar to our Indigenous colleagues, in Bolivia, Llanque et al. (2018) describe how for Indigenous female farmers, agroecology is not a model but rather a practice that comes from their ancestors.

Economic opportunity

Agroecology represents an economic activity for women. Studies have illustrated that selling agroecological products, locally, provides a unique opportunity for women; women in Brazil talked about the importance that money goes directly to them instead of to their male partners (García Roces, Soler Moneil, and Canto 2014–15). In our research, young and Elder participants reported how running their own agroecological businesses has resulted in financial independence which also leads to independence from their male partners; as Kattia states “… what I want to do, I can do as a woman … I have the help of my family but I do not require 100% from a man.”

Benefits of practicing agroecology

In Table 2, we outline the benefits women described as associated with their agroecological practices. All participants mentioned more than one benefit and we included their names associated with the examples provided.

Table 2. Benefits listed regarding women’s participation in agroecology. Farmers’ names are associated with the examples they shared

Benefits of practicing Agroecology	Examples
Land health	- Less contaminated water & carbon sequestration (Nuria) - Giving life to the land (Sebastiana) - Seeing humans and non-human beings as part of agriculture (Hannia) - Converting pasture to forest to increase land cover, for carbon sequestration, and to harvest microorganisms (Nuria, Sonia)
Knowledge sharing	- Share knowledge with clients who come to retreats (Silvia) - Teaching students, youth and marginal groups (Hannia) - Participating in farming groups and associations that share experiences and seeds (Nuria)
Creating community	- Meeting people at farmers markets (Hannia, Kattia) - Connecting farmers through distribution network (Felicia) - Having interns and visitors to the farm and creating global connections (Felicia)
Income & financial independence	- Selling products locally generates greater profits than selling to supermarkets (Kattia, Feilicia) -Agroecological products provide a fair wage (Hannia) - Selling products provides economic independence (Kattia) - Quality of organic vegetables creates a consistent income while monocrop farmers suffer fluctuations (Sonia)
Human health	- Selling people healthy food, free of harmful pesticides (Kattia) - Allowed her to recover from cancer and provide a healthy life for children (Sonia) - Use food as medicine to cure own health issues and educate others (Silvia, Felicia)
Self-confidence	- Entrepreneurship in agroecology can increase confidence that extends to other areas of one’s life (Kattia, Sonia) - Helps women position themselves in society (Kattia) - Learn not only how to farm but how to present her knowledge to groups (Sonia)
Leadership opportunities	- Served as president of organic farmers association (Sonia, Nuria)
Independence from men & equality	- Making decisions as a family (Hannia) - Does not depend on a man in her business (Kattia) - Moving away from serving men at home to improving the farm through agroecological initiatives (Nuria) - Helps create an identity beyond that of a husband’s identity (Kattia)
Cultural identity and knowledge	- Recovering indigenous food knowledge and revaluing such knowledge in mainstream society (Hannia) - Following the teachings of Sibö, the Creator (Sebastiana) - Sees humans’ role in protecting nature as one of God’s teachings (Sonia) - Returning to traditional practices that her parents used before agrochemical “green” revolution (Nuria) - Reinforces Indigenous identity (Zoraida, Esmeralda)
Seed conservation	- Recovering indigenous seeds and their spiritual value (Hannia) - Sharing seeds keeps traditions alive and helps adapt to climate change (Nuria) - Saving seeds decreases dependency on corporations for food and livelihoods (Felicia)

Women’s participation in agroecology: supporting factors and barriers

In Figure 1, we illustrate how women’s experiences varied greatly regarding factors that either support or hinder their participation in agroecology. To expand upon this visual summary, we discuss these factors individually.

Figure 1. Left: Factors that currently support and/or hinder women’s participation in agroecology; mixed refers to factors that were reported either as supporting factors or barriers, depending upon the woman interviewed. Right: Our vision of the areas in need of increased support

Themes reported only as supporting factors to women’s participation

Indigenous values of working together

Indigenous participants all described how values of working together ensure women are supported in their agricultural projects. Sebastiana explained: “for work, we help each other with ulàpeitök, this is the Bribri way of supporting each other”. Ulàpeitök translates to lend (peitök) a hand (ulà) and is a Bribri concept related to helping each other with work. For example, when a person is growing corn using shifting cultivation, people can ask their friends or relatives for ulàpeitök. When someone asks for ulàpeitök that person will provide a meal and chicha (a traditional fermented drink) to the people helping with work (Sylvester and García Segura 2017). Zoraida and Esmeralda also described how families work together on plots to support each other in agriculture.

Membership in agriculture organizations

Participants described participation in agriculture organizations as important to supporting their growth and the growth of their businesses (via funding and training). Previous research has illustrated that agricultural organizations are not always spaces where women’s voices are heard nor where women feel comfortable sharing; specifically, such organizations can reinforce gender divisions and may not question the political power men hold in agriculture (Shortall 2002). The latter has been reported in recent publications for agroecological organizations. For example, Llanque et al. (2018) report that in Bolivia, men are in the front rows at meetings and women are often sitting at the back and that their voices are not always heard; furthermore, these scholars show that women are often restricted to positions that are conventionally considered feminine in nature. Arias Guevara (2014) explains how in the well-known agroecological movement in Cuba (Movimiento Agroecológico Campesina a Campesina), how males have a stronger presence and women are underrepresented in coordination and facilitation roles in the movement. Morales et al. (2018) illustrate that within the Latinamerican Scientific Society for Agroecology (SOCLA), women only represent 22% of the keynote speakers (from data since 2007). In addition to these structural factors, Chiappe (2018) also reports that women can experience imposter syndrome and exclude themselves from certain positions or activities due to feelings of inadequacy.

Two farmers in our study, Kattia and Hannia, explained how they have had a different experience in agroecological organizations when compared to conventional agricultural organizations. Hannia highlighted that in conventional organizations men have often suggested she take the role as secretary despite her degree in social work as well as extensive experience in agriculture. Specifically, both farmers mentioned how agroecological (or organic) organizations accept the participation of men and women, and support men and women sharing their voices and opinions, something that has not been their experience in conventional agriculture organizations. These data illustrate that for some organizations in Costa Rica that agroecological organizations have made positive contributions for some women as compared to conventional organizations; as one reviewer suggested, women intentionally choosing agroecology over conventional farming could also be an indicator that discrimination could be more entrenched in conventional agricultural and the institutions that support it. While membership in agroecology organizations in Costa Rica provides women spaces to share their voice, in Latin America, women are still greatly underrepresented in agroecological organizations (Arias Guevara 2014; Llanque et al. 2018; Morales et al. 2018); thus, it is important to better understand the extent and nature of women’s participation in such organizations in Costa Rica.

Themes reported either as supporting factors or barriers to women’s participation in agroecology

Government support

Participants had different access to government support. One participant, Silvia, had very positive experiences with support from the Ministry of Agriculture. The local director not only helped her learn more about organic growing methods but also how to build a herb drier. Sonia also received government support to access land. Sebastiana, however, reported that the distance from government agencies is so far away from her community and thus, there is very little government support for Indigenous people. She explained “the government is so far away that they have no idea what goes on in our day-to-day lives”. These data support previous reports that highlight how women living most distant from urban centers face greater challenges accessing extension services (UN Women 2019). Beyond physical distance, this creates a scenario where Indigenous women’s concerns are not on the radar of extension services, thus perpetuating exclusion of groups of women that have a history of marginality in government policies and programs.

Credit and economic capital

Two farmers talked about access to credit and both had different experiences with the Costa Rican Development Bank’s program for women. Kattia described how the Development Bank provided her with support that was not provided to her husband. Hannia on the other hand described the challenges in obtaining loans for agroecology and organic agriculture. She explained how banks have programs that state they support women’s credit; however, in practice these programs do not differ from other credit systems. Sebastiana described how, in her case, in the Talamanca Bribri Indigenous Territory, women there have ample land access, but they lack funds for their agricultural projects. She described that loans are not common in her community and nor are they a good idea for farmers, in her view, because of the risk of becoming heavily indebted.

Kattia, Hannia, and Sebastiana all described different positions regarding credit. This is an important finding because in Costa Rica one recent solution proposed for smallholder farmers, by banks and by the Ministry of Agriculture, is to take advantage of credit opportunities directed to organic farming (Organic Agriculture Conference, University for Peace, Costa Rica April 2018); however, this option may just be an old solution packaged as a novel opportunity and may not be the best option for some farmers due to the risk of becoming heavily in-debt. The latter is especially important to consider for the Bribri context that Sebastiana comes from. Specifically, Bribri farmers in Talamanca depend on one market for their organic produce, and if there are disruptions in this market (e.g., extreme weather that makes it impossible to transport bananas via rivers), Bribri farmers do not have other consistent cash flows. Such a scenario would make it challenging for farmers to pay back loans. Credit for women requires increased attention before it is proposed as a one size fits all solution to increasing women’s participation in agroecology and organic farming (see the section below on high costs of agriculture). Instead what should be given more attention is unequal access to resources (e.g., land) that create structural inequities for women going into agroecology (Campos Peregrina 2018; Llanque et al. 2018).

Technology

Technology was mentioned by farmers in different contexts. Felicia, the youngest farmer, was the only participant that reported using an internet platform to sell fresh produce directly to consumers (other farmers take orders via e-mail, text, and/or Facebook messages). In contrast to Felicia’s experience, Hannia noted how for some women technology is an impediment. She explained that many female farmers she works with do not have consistent access to the Internet and thus miss out on important work opportunities via e-mail communication. Nuria’s farm is one such example. She explained how limited mobile phone and internet service have curtailed business and that her next investment will be acquiring internet to communicate with clients. Women’s access to technology is rarely mentioned in agroecological research; however, it relates to an important point made by other scholars; if women are not accessing leadership and political positions in agroecology, their needs (such as greater training in technology) will be underrepresented in extension programs (Arias Guevara 2014; Campos Peregrina 2018).

Land access

Land access was reported as supporting agroecology but not all women enjoy this privilege. Some participants have taken over family farms, as was the case for Felica and Silvia, who now manage/operate farms that do not have any outstanding debt. This was also the case for Sebastiana, Zoraida, and Esmeralda who inherited land from their relatives.

Two indigenous participants expressed land ownership differently. Sebastiana from the Talamanca territory explained that the majority of women inherit land, even more so than some men. Esmeralda, from the Quitirrisí territory, on the other hand, explained how men are landowners more often than women; this, she explained, means these men have a higher probability of accessing extension support as well as their ability to make decisions about resources. Thus, even among Indigenous People in Costa Rica land access is experienced differently.

Other participants purchased their own farmland. For Hannia this was possible after years of saving because she decided to transition to agriculture at a later life stage. She shared, however, that because farm prices have skyrocketed, it is almost impossible to buy land now. Kattia was able to purchase land just last year, after years of renting land. There was only one participant, Sonia, who is not yet the owner of her farmland. She was granted use of her land through an agricultural extension opportunity and is still in the process of formalizing ownership, which has proved challenging.

In Latin America, women have less access to land when compared to men (Deere and Leon 2001). For example, in Costa Rica, only 15.6% of all farms are owned or primarily operated by women (Estado de la Nación 2015). Studies from Bolivia illustrate that women in agroecology have less access to land than males in diverse communities. A lack of access to land has a variety of impacts including: 1) an inability to make decisions about resources, 2) having to marry to get access to land, and 3) to women’s out-migration (Doss et al. 2018; Llanque et al. 2018). Research in Costa Rica illustrates that there has been a progressive loss of land for women in rural areas due to 1) their lack of land titles, 2) a lack of respect by men for verbal inheritances from their mothers, and 3) a lack of women’s empowerment to participate in decisions about land titles, inheritances, and use (Bonilla Leiva 2018). Our findings support women’s inability to make decisions about resources due to a lack of land titles as well as a lack of respect for verbal forms of inheritance in conjunction. At the same time, our findings illustrate that these impacts differ based on different regions, people, and cultural group (e.g., Bribri Talamanca versus Huetar people); the diversity among women’s land access and factors that support increased access to resources and decision-making regarding these resources is an important area for future research.

Leadership opportunities

Scholars’ have found that women lack access to leadership roles in agroecology (Arias Guevara 2014; Chiappe 2018). Although agroecology can open up spaces for women’s participation and for women to challenge gender stereotypes in agriculture, scholars have illustrated that wider structural constraints impede women’s representation in agroecology leadership. Specifically, women in Latin America have been reported to lack leadership positions in agroecological groups and movements (e.g., MACC, Arias Guevara 2014) and at agroecological conferences (e.g., SOCLA, Morales et al. 2018).

In our research, two participants reported holding leadership roles in agroecological organizations. Other participants reported that although they did not have challenges themselves in running their own businesses, rather that they experienced challenges accessing leadership positions in local governments and/or in agricultural networks. Hannia described how she faces challenges accessing leadership opportunities in her community, despite her degree in social work as well as her extensive experience in leadership of social and agricultural organizations. For instance, she explained that in her community, she is the only woman that is in the local government and the only woman that goes to the meetings, and despite her experience and education, she is frequently given the role of secretary rather than a position that reflects her ample expertise. Similarly, Nuria reported holding the secretary position in the Caribbean Organic Producers Association (APOC), despite 30 years of experience in farming.

Esmeralda explained that women in her community are excluded from the political level. When extension projects are offered, they are generally offered to men, because men own land. Furthermore, she explained that women’s projects are not given as much priority as men’s projects. She explained, “I work in this community with youth and my work is invisible, whereas on the other hand, a man’s work is valued. Take a male soccer player for example, who hosts tournaments, now that is huge event … but my work, because I’m a woman, is not.”

As Campos Peregrina (2018) highlights, agroecosystems are part of complex wider social systems; thus, it is not surprising that agroecosystems reflect the unequal social relations of society where women are routinely excluded from leadership positions. Campos Peregrina (2018) refers to the gendered division of space where women are commonly associated with private (domestic) spaces and men public spaces, spaces where political decisions about agroecology are made. As our participants illustrate, these divisions are further complicated by uneven access to productive resources such as land, adding to men’s already disproportionate decision-making power.

Themes only reported as barriers to women’s participation in agroecology

Triple burden

The triple burden refers to women’s disproportionate workload, as compared to men, because of their combined work in the productive, reproductive, and social or community spheres (Grassi, Landberg, and Huyer 2015; Lyon, Mutersbaugh, and Worthen 2017, Doss et al. 2018). This disproportionate work results in time poverty which can also be exacerbated in the agriculture sector due to other factors including limited access to labor-saving technologies and mobility constraints (Grassi, Landberg, and Huyer 2015). Five women referred to the triple burden in agriculture regarding women’s divided time among childcare and household work, wage labor, and participation in social projects. Esmeralda explained that because of machismo, men have more opportunities than women since they do not have to factor in childcare into their schedules. Sebastiana explained that due to the time women spend taking care of children and their families, women can rarely leave their community to travel to receive training or participate in leadership or extension activities.

Lyon, Mutersbaugh, and Worthen (2017) examined the triple burden in women’s labor on organic coffee farms in Oaxaca, Mexico; these authors found that, despite high-levels of leadership and decision-making power, women experience significant time poverty due to the combination of labor in organic coffee production and a disproportionate share of domestic labor. These authors argue that in addition to the attention we pay to women’s land ownership and access to services such as credit and extension, agriculture programs need to develop creative ways to “ease women’s labor burdens and reduce their time poverty in order to facilitate full organizational participation” (p. 319). One of our participants echoed this recommendation. Sonia, who is a single mother, producer, and an active leader in the sustainable production movement, explains the dilemma of the triple burden.

Organic farming is friendly for women since the plots are smaller and close to home. But I can’t do everything … What I really need is to hire help to care for my daughter, but that is not accepted as an agricultural cost.

Participant Sonia as well as authors Lyon, Mutersbaugh, and Worthen (2017), illustrate that we need to design agricultural interventions based on what women report as their priority areas of need, rather than limiting support to conventional extension services.

Nuria, in addition to farming and caring for her family, collaborates with national universities on research projects and has held leadership position is agroecological organizations. She links the triple burden to machismo and traditional expectations of women performing caregiving duties in addition to other work. She highlighted a generational shift in her home that could lessen women’s triple burden:

We only had boys [4 sons] so it was important that they learned that I wouldn’t serve their plates or spoil them. I now see my sons bathing and changing diapers for their own babies. The problem is that if we don’t break the expectations of machismo, women will end up with a larger workload. We can’t just expect women to take on more agricultural work, men must share the household chores too.

Thus, if gender equality is the goal in agroecology we need to address the triple burden and elements that can exacerbate this, such as men’s participation in domestic responsibilities. The latter point has been highlighted in Sachs and Patel-Campillo’s (2014) feminist food justice approach that calls for an increased involvement of men and boys in household responsibilities as well as the redefinition of heteronormative household models.

Machismo & microaggressions

Machismo refers to male chauvinism within a system of male patriarchal privilege (Hurtado and Sinha 2016). Although machismo is reported in Latin America, it is understudied (Hurtado and Sinha 2016). We recognize the diversity of Latino masculinities, however, unpacking this diversity is outside the scope of our study; we report here only on how women participants experience machismo and patriarchal privilege.

As social and legal action against overt sexual discrimination increases, “subtle or covert sexism is hidden or unnoticed because it is built into social and cultural norms” (Capodilupo et al. 2010, 193). Microaggressions are one example of these subtle forms of discrimination against women (Basford 2013). Microaggressions are defined as “everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (Sue 2010, 1). Microaggressions can invalidate and/or demean on a personal and on a group level (Sue 2010). The construct of microaggressions also offers a new window into the contemporary manifestations and effects of gender discrimination (Basford 2013). Microaggressions produce and reproduce marginality by highlighting and supporting harmful assumptions about a group of people, including women in conventionally male occupations, such as agriculture.

All women in our study described expressions machismo and microaggressions as barriers to their participation in agroecology and/or as sources of discomfort in their professions. The following experience relayed by Sonia exemplifies the presence of microaggressions to women in everyday life in Costa Rica. Sonia described how the Ministry of Agriculture has set up visits to her award-winning farm to showcase best agroecological practices. In one instance, a male guest, who traveled over four hours to participate in a workshop she led, greeted her with the following statement: “I came all this way to receive training, am I really going to be taught by a woman?”

Hannia described another scenario where people are negative toward her and her husband because they share decision-making power within their agroecological business. Specifically, she explains how it is challenging because in her community people negatively remark that she wears the pants in the family. She explains that when she started going to community meetings people reacted by saying, “now the hen is really calling”. She explains this was an insult to her male partner and illustrated how members of these meetings could not understand that she had her own opinion and that her husband considered it important and valid.

Participants highlighted the role of women in the continuity of machismo. Silvia confirmed that women often perpetuate gender roles and enforce domestic expectations for their daughters and daughters-in-law. Silvia explained:

It is often mothers that enforce that farming is not a proper job for women. Girls are required to spend their time taking care of the men of the household as daughters and wives instead of learning skills. It was part of my role to make sure my son saw that women are capable in all areas.

Kattia described how everyday microaggressions can be debilitating, however in her case they also motivate her to keep working harder to challenge gender stereotypes. She told us:

There have been situations when people tell me that farming is a man’s work, not a woman’s … that I should be in the house cleaning the windows and not farming. These are things that could discourage me but, in my case, they remind me that I can keep going and even do more.

Negative messages based on gender, are not limited to verbal communication among people. Hannia described how she is continually exposed to messages that illustrate that women are lesser than men in the media. Specifically, she explained:

Since we are very young, very subtly, we are taught that it is difficult to compete with men because men are superior to women … men are taught with words or subliminal messages that they are the strong people and all of this propaganda is all over social media and television … there is no equality … take soccer for example, the national men’s team is portrayed as super and women are not. The media is playing a big role in what is happening to us [women].

Kattia further described how societal messages and stereotypes impede women from participating in certain areas of their agroecological businesses:

Unfortunately, many women in this country do not participate in farming business activities. I have a colleague who sells in the market and she needs a truck with four-wheel drive for the winter road conditions to leave her farm. I have suggested she go to get a loan but unfortunately her and many women do not act because of the machismo that surrounds them. My colleague says that her husband doesn’t want her to buy a truck because he doesn’t see it as necessary; these are things that us women in Latin America face … these are countries where women have to stay in the kitchen cleaning and washing dishes and obeying. But, those of us who choose to act differently and say no to this, we achieve our goals.

Hannia explained the need to work specifically with men and women to break down erroneous stereotypes about gender roles in agriculture. She shared that:

It seems that the male figure always needs to be present to ensure that a project is valued, with more weight in our society. I believe we need to deeply work on gender equality with men and women together to help everyone understand that we are equal.

Scholars in the field of gender and development echo Hannia’s belief; Sweetman (2013) specifically suggests three areas for work with both men and women: 1) Working on violent masculinities as part of women’s empowerment projects, 2) supporting men to be responsible husbands and fathers, and 3) working with youth. One reviewer of this paper added the importance of supporting women for social change.

A lack of understanding of Indigenous culture

Women’s groups may not always look like those commonly described in the Western context and one participant illustrates why this can be a barrier to their agroecology practice. Sebastiana, from the Bribri Talamanca territory explained that one barrier to accessing opportunities in agroecology is a lack of outsiders’ understanding of Bribri Indigenous agriculture. Specifically, she explained how outsider support organizations have been reluctant to provide resources to her women’s agricultural group, because this group is made up of men and women. For Bribri people, Sebastiana explained, men and women work together in family and clan groups and thus they have not made a women’s group that is only women. One of the problems she described was when she, the president of their women’s group, sent a male member of the group to pick up grant money for a farming project. In this case, she explained, the organization did not want to give money to a man for this women’s group. However, as Sebastiana explained, it can be challenging for women to travel to commercial centers and leave their children and farm unattended – thus, their male partners can support them in activities that require distant travel. The latter exemplifies the need to understand the cultural context of women’s agricultural work; in this case a Western institutional idea how a women’s group should operate may clash with an Indigenous perspective – this ideological contrast has yet to be reported, to our knowledge, in the agroecology literature.

High costs of farming

Kattia explained that one of her main challenges is the high costs of doing agriculture. She shared that the cost of organic farming is “extremely high in Costa Rican and many farmers disappear because they cannot pay their bank debt.” Furthermore, she explained that she knows people “who are losing their houses and their farms because agricultural products are being sold at very low prices while production costs are high.” She then elaborated on how this issue is not limited to agroecological production but to farming in general. Kattia has a business that she describes as profitable because she sells directly to consumers but when she used to sell to supermarkets and intermediaries, her business was not profitable. Felica confirmed that additional investments for organic production are not profitable when selling through distributors. She has developed a profitable business model by selling her produce directly to customers through internet orders.

Women elsewhere doing agroecology have reported the high costs of production. Specifically, in Bolivia Indigenous women reported that their sales were not enough to cover their family needs and costs of production (Llanque et al. 2018). Additionally, it is important to note that female farmers may also bear disproportionate costs of childcare (including school supplies among other items; an observation we made in the field in Costa Rica). Furthermore, other scholars have reported that women in agroecology may need to negotiate with male partners for pieces of land and can be given lower quality patches of land to grow their products (e.g., Campos Peregrina 2018’s work in Nicaragua). These and other gendered inequities around land and the care economy illustrate how the high costs of agriculture may not affect men and women in the same way.

Conclusions and recommendations

By using a feminist approach to understanding women’s lived experiences, our research makes an important contribution to the field of agroecology. Specifically, we build on a small but growing body of feminist literature that collectively illustrates that although agroecology opens up spaces for women’s participation, it is not synonymous with gender equity; and, that agroecology alone does not transform women’s invisible and subordinate position in farming (Arias Guevara 2014; Chiappe 2018; Zuluaga Sanchez, Catacora-Vargas, & Siliprandi, 2018). Not only does our work contribute a case study from Costa Rica, a country from which data on this topic are lacking, but it makes a contribution to the feminist agroecological literature in English. The latter is important because the majority of feminist analyses regarding women and agroecology are published in Spanish (and some in Portuguese). Additionally, our work adds insight into how women’s age, ethnicity, and geographic location can shape women’s experiences in agroecology further expanding on understanding that one woman’s experiences are not all women’s experiences.

Many of our findings confirm the results of other studies in Latin America. For example, we found that women derive multiple benefits from agroecology (however not all women reported the same benefits). These benefits include: sharing knowledge, creating community, income generation, independence (financial and having their own identity that goes beyond wife or mother), equality (making decisions as a family), identities, health (human and land), biodiversity and seed conservation, self-confidence, leadership opportunities within agroecological networks. Women’s access to leadership in Costa Rica requires more research. Although two women reported holding leadership roles in agroecology, other women mentioned that despite their expertise, knowledge, and training they are still not considered to the same extent as men for leadership positions and may be assigned to jobs that are conventionally associated with women (e.g., secretary or assistant). The inability of agroecology movements to open up meaningful spaces in leadership for women has been reported in Latin America at the local level (Llanque et al. 2018), national movements (Arias Guevara 2014) and in research and training organizations (e.g., SOCLA, Morales et al. 2018) and is something that needs greater attention.

Our research is also in-line with emerging goals in the field of agroecology including: gaining a better understanding how agroecological systems are embedded within wider gendered societal contexts (Gliessman 2016). Our results illustrate both supporting factors and barriers to women’s participation in agroecology; these findings demonstrate how agroecology in Costa Rica cannot be isolated from 1) the wider culture of discrimination against women in agriculture and 2) their disproportionate roles in the care economy. Specifically, we found one of the barriers reported by all women was machismo and microaggressions. Machismo and microaggressions are rarely reported in the agroecological literature and are understudied in general in Latin America (Hurtado and Sinha 2016). We also found that over half of the women we worked with reported experiencing a triple burden, or a disproportionate, and undervalued and underpaid, workload compared to that of men due to their work in productive, reproductive, and community spheres.

Women elsewhere report that despite the benefits of agroecology, this form of farming just means longer work days because their other household responsibilities do not decrease (Campos Peregrina 2018; Dorrego 2018; García Roces, Soler Moneil, Canto 2014–15); the latter can result in working longer hours and skipping meals (Llanque et al. 2018). To address women’s triple burdens, we require increased involvement of men and boys in household responsibilities as well as the redefinition of heteronormative household models (Sachs and Patel-Campillo’s, 2014). Our findings reinforce those of feminist agroecological scholarship that agroecology alone does not democratize gender relations (Chiappe 2018) and we need more concerted efforts to promote gender equity in the field of agroecology.

Our research further revealed how women in Costa Rica experience agroecology differently, based on age, ethnicity, and geographic location and their unique contexts. When we asked women about what factors supported and/or hindered their agroecological businesses, the results varied. Some factors were only reported as supporting factors (e.g., membership in agriculture organizations, Indigenous values) and others only reported as barriers (e.g., the triple burden, machismo, lack of understanding of Indigenous culture, high costs of doing agriculture). Furthermore, there was a subset of factors that were reported either as supporting and constraining, depending upon the woman interviewed (e.g. meaningful leadership opportunities, government support, credit & economic capital, technology, and land access). Thus, although there are some common barriers to women’s full and equitable participation in agroecology, some women’s barriers are not all women’s barriers. The diversity in our findings illustrates why gendered interventions should be tailored based on context-specific needs and intersectional realities (e.g., working with Elders to support their access to technology, increasing government support for women in remote areas, adapting interventions to incorporate Indigenous values). Although tailoring interventions to female’s diverse needs may sound like common sense, this is not always the case with top-down interventions that have conventionally been designed based on generalizations about women (Doss et al. 2018). In Costa Rica, one gap that we note is in describing Afro-descendant female farmers lived-experiences as well as a diversity of Indigenous experiences.

To support women’s participation in agroecology, we propose the creation of an organization where women can share skills, knowledge, opportunities, and grievances as well as propose emic solutions to the challenges they face. Specifically, we propose the creation of a women’s agroecological network that can serve as a platform for leadership development, knowledge transfer, and application of technology as well as a specific platform to bring attention to machismo in agriculture and in everyday life. We suggest that a women’s agroecological network could function as a bridging organization for other organizations working in-country that have a mandate of gender mainstreaming (e.g., FAO or the Ministry of Agriculture); this women’s network could then provide support for national and international agricultural organizations that have gender mainstreaming mandates but that lack knowledge about different women’s unique needs in Costa Rica. The network could also offer a space to disseminate women’s self-determined agendas and enable women to adapt such agendas to account for their individual and group diversity.

Compliance with ethical standards

Research complied with the ethical standards of the University for Peace Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.